Centaur Chess

Are Centaur chess players real chess players or talented computer technicians?

A good player will beat a good technician all the time in a centaur game.

One of the highest rated Centaur players around is an active playing 1300 rated player.

correspondence ratings:

1.  Menke, John R           CC: 2491  OTB: 1796
2.  Van Enk, Steven J       CC: 2452  OTB: 2242
3.  Brandhorst, Wesley      CC: 2438  OTB: Unrated
4.  Buss, Michael           CC: 2424  OTB: 1505
5.  Ingersol, Harry         CC: 2415  OTB: Unrated
6.  Tracz, James G          CC: 2405  OTB: 1745
7.  Tseng, Wilbur           CC: 2403  OTB: 1224 (P)
8.  Mcgregor, Stephen Dean  CC: 2376  OTB: Unrated
9.  Brower, Walter J        CC: 2373  OTB: Unrated
10. Swan, Peter Lee         CC: 2366  OTB: 1300

I believe you're using uscf ratings for correspondence, which aren't centaur ratings as uscf does not allow computers.

Why is it that every time you post about ICCF correspondence players or about centaur chess you use insulting or inflammatory language, or imply that strong correspondence players lack chess skill? It's rather demeaning.

you are correct, these are correspondence and otb rating comparisons.

i would appreciate it if you would point to the demeaning or insulting language i used in this post.

perhaps my question would have been better phrased had I asked, "Can non-chess players be successful centaur players?"

Your entire premise is demeaning and insulting towards serious correspondence chess players, that a good result could be pulled off by a "talented computer technician."

I am a very "talented computer techician", not to boast too much but I am at the top of my game in systems engineering.  Moreover I have access to pretty much unlimited server-grade hardware.  If I were motivated, I could easily build a rack full of engine-running servers and the associated scripting glue that could enable them to think very, very deep in parallel.  Yet I know, without a doubt, that I couldn't hold a candle to these correspondence masters.

If you think it is so easy, then join ICCF and go get your master title.

"Can non-chess players be successful centaur players?"

No.

i believe it to be a fact.  and if it is a fact, it is inspiring.  That would mean chess theory can be accurately expanded by a much larger population than previously thought.

what I find demeaning is when computer techs begin making claims of their chess prowess based on computer assisted results.  B and C players making unsubstantiated claims that their OTB strength is expert or master level.

kanti the specific language here, which I think you realized anyway, was are centaur chess players real chess players.

What, if anything, are you basing your answer?

The fact that there are many types of positions that engines cannot play properly, and that much of ICCF theory revolves around knowing how to get to and how to avoid these positions.

If you want to test your premise, it would be very easy for you to join ICCF and play the moves that Houdini recommends without any further analysis by yourself.  I am anxious to hear about your results and hope that you will post them here once you have some games vs ICCF masters completed.

here is an example:

an OTB b-player whose last few tournaments included a victory over a 2198 and a 1900+ player stopped playing otb chess and to become a very successful centaur player.  Based on these results, this person describes his otb skill as at least expertand probably master.  What he and every Vegas winner fails to mention is their losses.  In the same span of winning had losses to 1600 rated players as well.

Another example is a player who advertises himself as "expert strength" to lure paying customers, even though they are an otb B player at best.

My point is they are apples and oranges.

computers are not allowed in iccf.  i believe the comparison list indicates that some of those people are cheating.  for example, the 1300 rated player would not be able to accomplish what you have stated; yet he is 10th in the country.

I lost to a 1524 in my second-to-last chess event, and I still claim to be expert strength...partially because my USCF rating has been consistently above 2000 for a while now...

a claim you could and likey would not make if your rating was 1700+

Let me ask a question and then tell everyone else how they should answer.